There _is_ a slightly looser coupling than an HR department, but the judges are still appointed and confirmed by politicians with pretty clear material interests. It's not so much a case of being "paid to rule the right way" as being chosen _because_ of an inclination to rule the right way

Independent in operation, but not able to perform their own hiring. The temptation to appoint sycophantic justices who have espoused opinions in line with the dominant party is high.

> Courts are independent (in theory)

In the last couple years the {in practice} part has made this independence completely untrue.

> completely untrue.

That would explain why the government never loses in court ever, ever, right?

One could argue that its merely lost to another government faction. Ala intra-aristocratic strife.

Perhaps it could even be described as one part of the government applying checks and balances against another part.

Why, what changed in the last couple years?

I don't necessarily agree with GP, but don't judges get government salaries?

The government consists of three independent branches of which one is the judiciary. You can’t compare this to a company which is basically a dictatorship.

I am not sure why you are being down voted, this is a perfectly accurate statement - and if viewed from a democratic perspectives, corporates are very dictatorial and mafia-like